Missouri puppy mills

Missouri puppy mills. For more general information on puppy mills, see also main SourceWatch article Puppy Mills.

Prop B: 'Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act' passes
On November 3, 2010, Missouri voters narrowly approved a ballot measure aimed at ridding the state of its reputation as the nation's puppy mill capital. Proposition B restricts commercial breeders to a maximum of 50 female breeding dogs, increases cage size requirements and mandates that breeding dogs receive annual veterinary exams. Other requirements include daily feeding and a limit on breeding not to exceed twice every 18 months. Breeders must also house animals indoors with unfettered access to an outdoor exercise yard. Violations will be a misdemeanor carrying up to 15 days in jail and a $300 fine. The measure applies to operators with over 10 female breeding dogs. Animal rights groups have estimated that between 30 to 40% of all dogs found in pet stores come from Missouri. According to Cori Menkin of the ASPCA:


 * "Missouri has the reputation of puppy mill capital of the country for a reason. It has more puppy mills than any other state in the country, so improving the standard of care of dogs in large commercial breeding facilities there will impact more dogs than any other state."

Opponents included breeder groups, animal agribusiness and the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association; who feared that the measures would "force some breeders out of business" and "lead to restrictions on other animal agriculture." The initiative was also fiercely opposed by such groups as the National Rifle Association (NR) and various conservative groups. See also sections 4 & 5. Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, the organization which spearheaded and circulated the ballot initiative, is comprised of numerous individuals, veterinarians and animal welfare organizations, including the Humane Society of Missouri, the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Best Friends Animal Society, Animal Rescue Foundation and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).

Estimates as to the number of licensed breeders in the state of Missouri vary, however, according to the Better Business Bureau (BBB), the figure is approximately 1,800 licensed breeders. This is four times the number of breeders in the next highest state. There are also numerous unlicensed breeders subject to enforcement.

Better Business Bureau report


In March of 2010, the BBB release a report entitled “The Puppy Industry in Missouri: A Study of Buyers, Sellers, Breeders and Enforcement of the Law”. It asserted that Missouri was “so overwhelmed by the number of puppy sellers that it can’t regulate the puppy industry properly.” It tracked 352 complaints from consumers from all over the country and focused on over 100 families who purchased Missouri-bred dogs. Many of these dogs had diseases, including the fatal parvo virus. It also tracked the failure of breeders and/or sellers to provide compensation for thousands of dollars in subsequent veterinary bills. The BBB report detailed instances in which large scale puppy mill operators were cited for repeated and serious violations, yet were allowed to continue breeding and selling puppies:


 * “This report underscores the ineffectiveness of current laws to protect both the dogs in puppy mills and the consumers who unwittingly purchase their offspring,” said Kathy Warnick, president of the Humane Society of Missouri. “Passage of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act is the only way Missouri will shut down the shoddy breeders who sell their sick puppies all across the country -- by making the inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills a criminal offense.”

According to Nancy Grove of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation:


 * “Missouri is a pro-business state. ...But the rampant sale of sick and dying puppies by inhumane puppy mills is a black eye for our dog breeding industry.”

BBB Study finds puppy mills "thriving" & lack of enforcement
The BBB study concluded that 30% of federally licensed dog breeders are located in Missouri. This is four times the number of breeders in the next highest state. The study was sponsored by the St. Louis, Kansas City and Springfield BBBs and initiated in response to the large scale consumer complaints. The study focused on broad issues facing the industry and already acknowledged by the Missouri Department of Agriculture. Southwest Missouri is the hub of the puppy industry. The Hunte Corporation puppy broker reportedly buys and sells about 90,000 puppies per year. It is located in the small town of Goodman in the southwest corner, near Oklahoma and Arkansas. These three states are among the top five states for USDA licensed breeders. Hunte, which delivers puppies to pet stores via 18-wheeler semis, has been the target of several suits filed by animal welfare groups and pet store owners alleging that they deliver sick puppies. See also Hunte Corporation.

The puppy industry is governed by the federal Animal Welfare Act and the Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act, administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and state Departments of Agriculture. Missouri law mandates annual inspections of the state’s 1,800 licensed dog breeders, plus animal shelters, pet stores, intermediate handlers and dealers. There are also numerous unlicensed breeders subject to enforcement. However, there are only 13 inspectors, who also have other duties. State auditors have repeatedly pointed out that the state does not inspect all dog breeding facilities annually. See also USDA.

As an example of inefficiency in pursuing violating breeders, the study cited the case of Tim King Jr., operator of the Doo Little Kennel near Rolla, Mo. Federal inspectors found 103 violations during seven inspections in less than two years, before finally taking action. The USDA license of another breeder was canceled and reinstated three times before being canceled a fourth time. Citing a survey in which 40% of the 50 states responded, the study found that inspectors in Missouri inspected twice as many kennels as their counterparts in other states.

Recommendations
The BBB recommended that:


 * U.S. and Missouri Departments of Agriculture more aggressively pursue penalties against repeat offenders.
 * Missouri consider raising annual licensing fees (not been raised since regulated dog breeding and selling were implemented in 1992.)
 * Consumers consider “adopting” a pet from an animal shelter.
 * Missouri consider legislation to streamline the process for penalizing repeat offenders, while still allowing for due process.

Proposed & previous laws
According to the initiative:


 * "The purpose of this Act (would be) to prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills by requiring large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with basic food and water, adequate shelter from the elements, necessary veterinary care, (space), and regular exercise."

The new law would not apply to those who breed and sell hunting dogs, laboratory dogs, dogs receiving veterinary treatment or during exercise or cleaning of their enclosures, pet stores, animal rescues or shelters, hobby or show breeders with ten or less female breeding dogs and dog trainers who do not breed or sell dogs. The new law would also not apply during transportation or in an emergency. Significantly, the ballot initiative would limit licensed dog breeders to 50 breeding dogs. A dramatic reduction in numbers for many of Missouri's puppy mills. Many of these mills house hundreds or even thousands of breeding dogs. The state is known as the puppy mill capital of America and puppy mills bring in an estimated $250 million dollars a year. Other noteworthy provisions include (from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail):


 * Minimum of 12 sq ft of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long.
 * Minimum of 20 sq ft of of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long.
 * Minimum of 30 sq ft of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer
 * Minimum of one ft of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure.
 * Temperatures kept between 45 and 85 degrees F.
 * "Unfettered access" to an exercise area.
 * Necessary veterinary care including an annual examination. See also text of amendment.

The previous recommendations were implemented in 1992. They required breeders with 4 or more breeding dogs to obtain an annual license. Annual inspections were required, but the state only had about a dozen inspectors for all animal care facilities. Missouri had the authority to refuse to renew or revoke the license of any breeder failing to comply with USDA or state regulations; was convicted of violating an animal protection law or submitted a "material or deliberate misstatement" in their license or renewal application.

Standards were minimal. Dogs could be crowded into cages or tethered. The Act did little more than require puppy millers to maintain conditions that didn't cause injury, infestation or disease. Space and exercise provisions were the same as for U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) licensed breeders (crowded with no exercise requirements.) For example, exercise was not required if cages provided "at least 100% of the required space for each dog if maintained separately". Space requirements were calculated by the square sum of the length of the dog (from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail) plus 6 inches and divided by 144 inches (with slightly more space for nursing dogs.)  Exercise requirements were satisfied if housing was twice the minimal space. There were also minimal standards for sanitation, cleaning, lighting, ventilation, fire protection, water, food, and shelter from extreme temperatures and shade or protection from snow, rain or hail. Otherwise, puppy millers were directed to follow "normal animal husbandry practices". ,

See also USDA, section 4 & NABR & the Animal Welfare Act.

Unlicensed breeders & audits
The state requires commercial breeders to obtain licenses. The USDA also requires licensing of some commercial breeders and dealers. However the USDA does not require licensing of commercial breeders selling directly to the public through newspaper ads or the Internet. Authorities believe there are several hundred commercial dog breeder operating in Missouri without a license. According to animal welfare advocates, there may be as many as 2,000 to 3,000 in the state. In 2001 and 2004, state auditor and now U.S. Senator Claire McCaskill, issued scathing reports on the state's puppy mill inspections and lax enforcement of the Animal Care Facilities Act. A 2008 audit showed little improvement. In 2009, after the state once again failed to pass new laws similar to the present initiative, Gov. Jay Nixon, Director of Agriculture Dr. Jon Hagler and Attorney General Chris Koster launched "Operation Bark Alert", a citizen watchdog program for reporting of alleged violations. As a result, 50 cases came under consideration for prosecution and 150 unlicensed dog breeders were shut down. Missouri state Rep. Jim Viebrock, in line with his usual opposition to humane legislation, referred to the bill as a:


 * "train wreck.... just loaded with a lot of emotional stuff".

Penalties & states which regulate puppy mills
According to Prop B, first time violations a Class C misdemeanor. Repeat violators would be charged with a Class A misdemeanor for a subsequent violation. Tragically, as per usual when faced with the spectre of providing humane care and treatment for "breeding stock", some puppy millers threatened to kill their dogs. However, rescues and shelters have made provisions to take unwanted dogs. Other states which now limit the number of breeding dogs kept by commercial breeders include Virginia, Louisiana, Washington and Oregon. Similar limits are pending in Massachusetts and New York. Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Indiana, Arizona, Pennsylvania and Tennessee also recently enacted laws regulating puppy mills and the state of Illinois has formed a task force to study the issue and make recommendations. In 2010, California's legislature passed a bill limiting the number of breeding dogs per commercial breeder to 50, However,  Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

Tea Party, Joe the Plumber, Phyllis Schlafly & "Alliance for Truth"
"Alliance for Truth" is a conservative group in Missouri opposing Prop B. As the and the main force behind the anti-Prop B movement, it has picked up backing from such notables as the Tea Party and Joe the Plumber in it's mission to prevent "radical" anti-puppy mill legislation. According to the Alliance for Truth, there is something nefarious afoot, namely a "radical agenda" that is "misleading the public with its intentions on Prop B.  According to spokes person Anita Andrews, it's a:


 * "deceptive, lying bill" that is "trying to purposefully get rid of the breeders." The state of Missouri, she said, has been given a bad rap as "the puppy mill capitol" of the U.S. but "in truth we have the best ribbon breeders in the country."

According to Ms. Andrews, Missouri already has anti-cruelty laws on the books. Furthermore, the real problem with HSUS, is that "they don't like animals." She further explains that, the Alliance for Truth, unlike animal rights activists, has:


 * "no intention of wiping every animal off this earth. ..humans and animals are on the same level, ownership of an animal is slavery (and) animals should have attorney representation."

Presumably so every dog can have his day in court. All because humane advocates want dogs to have enough space to stretch, regular food, water, exercise periods, yearly check ups, not be left out in inclement weather or literally bred to death. Pretty radical stuff. Sounds a little like animal welfare. However, according to Joe 'The Plumber' Wurzelbacher:


 * HSUS is "cowardly hiding behind animal cruelty, lying to our citizens and taking our constitutional rights away - one state at a time. This bill forces breeders to limit the number of dogs they can own - regardless of care."

The Missouri chapter of Phyllis Schlafly's conservative Eagle Forum also jumped on the bandwagon, calling the measure a "hoax." According to Micheal Markarian, Chief Operating Officer of HSUS, the measure aims to eliminate the "3000 puppy mills" in Missouri which constitute "30% of all puppy mills in the U.S.":


 * "We want people to have pets. We just want the pets to come from good sources."  Accusations like these, are par for the course when these groups cannot defend the cruelty of puppy mills."

Agribusiness groups & breeder groups
Another implausibly named group, the "Missourians for Animal Care" is comprised of various agricultural and breeding industry groups. In what appears to be a typical straw man argument from Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), their stated objection, according to Chairman Don Nikodim is that:


 * "HSUS is a multi-million-dollar fund raising organization that runs such misleading campaigns under the false guise of cute puppies and kittens. They have no connection to our local shelters and unfortunately have no interest in solutions.  In their own words, the ultimate goal of HSUS is to end animal agriculture.  ...Missouri currently has stringent laws, regulations and reporting systems in place to prevent animal abuse."

The groups mission is to "address the tactics of anti-ag activists" and "shine a light on the deceptive practices and aims of HSUS."

Because, treating dogs and puppies humanely sets a dangerous precedent. One that may ultimately lead to ...actually treating farm animals humanely.

Details on HSUS' various campaigns and programs as well as their direct animal care sanctuaries, rescues, centers and programs, are listed on their website. There is nothing to suggest that they are anything other than a national animal advocacy organization (exactly what they claim to be) nor that the entire scope of their activities is limited to "cute puppies and kittens." It is a shame that the agricultural industry must stoop to employing CCF style tactics, rather than confront its own long standing and serious health, environmental and animal welfare issues. See also meat & dairy industry.

AVMA
The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) lent a helping hand to undermine Prop B. According to AVMA CEO Ron DeHaven in an associated video, (above right) Prop B "only sets limits on the number of dogs that can be kept", but otherwise "doesn't do much." Furthermore "there is no research to support that limit laws like Prop B improve the welfare of dogs." This is followed by a proposal for an "AVMA model bill" or one which conveniently relies almost exclusively on the "honor system". ,

It seems a reasonable assumption that 50 breeding dogs (still a large number of dogs and many of those with litters of puppies) might stand a better chance of getting their daily needs met than hundreds or thousands of dogs in a barn. Further, it seems plausible that lower numbers would reduce the potential for abuse, even without the "research". However, given the AVMA's penchant for ignoring information or simply the obvious, which runs counter to industry interests, that isn't to say there hasn't been any research. Certainly, this initiative isn't ground breaking. It also dovetails nicely with the also mentioned lack of resources for inspections. Less dogs mean less inspections and less state and federal oversight.

A review of AVMA policies reveals that standards for farm animals generally echo agricultural industry recommendations. The AVMA endorses practices which are not supported by the animal welfare community or the general public. These include gestation crates, foie gras, steel jaw traps, the inhumane slaughter of birds, horse slaughter and large commercial dog breeding operations or puppy mills. See also AVMA, sections 1 & 2.

Prop B repeals
There are currently six bills to modify or repeal Proposition B. Evidently, the state legislature has so little else to do, that by January 13, 2011 (slightly over two months after passing of Prop B) no less than five bills to repeal or modify Prop B were introduced. One bill, SB 95 alters Prop B to apply to shelters; a mean spirited and petty act considering they are cleaning up after puppy mills and breeders. Also, city and country laws mandate that public shelters must take in all dogs. HB 131 guts the law completely. It changes the provision so that none of the requirements apply to breeders with less than 100 dogs. It even removes requirements for clean drinking water, wholesome food, regulated veterinary care and adequate shelter.

David Martosko's strategy
According to Geni Wren, editor of Bovine Veterinarian magazine:


 * "Prop B seeks to burden licensed dog breeders (who already operate within restrictive state laws) with more regulation that could put them out of business. It does nothing to address unlicensed dog breeders, and agriculture groups fear it is a foot-in-the-door of potential 'domestic animal' regulation, which can also include livestock."

Again, the potentially slippery slope of what humane treatment of dogs could mean. However, on a hopeful note:


 * "Missouri, however, is not done fighting. Some Republican lawmakers are seeking to overturn this vote with their legislative power. As a state law, the measure is subject to amendments, changes or outright repeal by the legislature.  I spoke with David Martosko, director of research for Center for Consumer Freedom who offers some post-Prop B strategies for the animal industry of Missouri, which is also a road map for other states that may face similar propositions by HSUS."

A key element in David Martoskos's plan is to:


 * "Sponsor advertising for a few high-profile Missouri pet shelters so the public hears the message that local humane societies are about to be overrun.—and that HSUS, which spent $2.18 million creating a new problem, isn’t going to pony up enough money to deal with the consequences.”

It was "heartening" apparently, to see "Missouri to see livestock producers, veterinarians, dog breeders, horse owners and others come together against Prop B." According to Mr. Martosko, undermining efforts to legislate humane treatment of animals is a lot like a ball game. Further, the "ethics" of those pushing for same are suspect:


 * "HSUS is always going to play the role of the aggressor in these campaigns, which means that it expects to moves the ball, set the pace of the action, and 'own' the playing field. But you don’t have to let that happen. ...Trust in the fact that you have a good story to tell, and tell it loudly. Remember—most of the time agriculture is on the side of the angels. So the more the public discusses the issue (and even argues about it), the more likely it will be for the truth to percolate to the surface. In short, controversy is good. Public drop-down, drag-out fights are even better. If nothing else, realize that you have nothing to lose because you’re facing an opponent who will do anything—ethical or not—to win.”


 * "Waiting until September and October is a recipe for disaster. By that point in time, HSUS already owns the airwaves and you’re stuck playing defense. That’s what happened in Missouri. The only practical way to win these things is to play offense instead. That requires early action. It also has the virtue of being less expensive, since media costs a lot less to buy 6 months before an election than in the home-stretch.”

Puppy mill humor & 'pup-pocalypse'


As promised, David Martosko published the following "Op-ed" in the Springfield News Leader on December 3, 2010. Just one short month after being passed and 11 months prior to the new requirements being enforced, Prop B has "created what may be the mother of all unintended consequences." According to Mr. Martosko:


 * "As things stand, a flood of unwanted dogs could be pouring into Missouri pet shelters in the coming months." He further describes the new standards as "redundant", as they have already "existed statewide since 1992.  ...the truly bad 'puppy mills' will keep on operating under the law's radar.  ...Even if a breeder has two dozen employees giving 51 dogs daily massages, pedicures and catered meals, that won't be good enough."  He admonishes "national animal protection groups to step up to plate" due to the "looming flood of unwanted dogs and puppies".  According to Mr. Martosko:


 * "HSUS is a Washington, D.C., lobby group that isn't affiliated with Missouri 'humane societies.' In contrast with its PR campaigns, it doesn't run a single pet shelter anywhere."

In fact, it was the Missouri Humane Society and several other welfare and rescue organizations which initiated and supported Prop B in the first place, along with HSUS. Further, HSUS' 11 million members are entitled to spend their donations on whatever projects they choose. Some of these include direct care of animals in their sanctuaries, rescues, wildlife rehabilitation centers and mobile veterinary clinics. HSUS also provides guidelines, evaluations, training programs, direct support and national conferences for local humane societies and publishes a bi-monthly magazine for shelter personnel. Detailed information and updates on campaigns addressing animal protection issues are available on their website. See also HSUS.

Mr. Martosko complains that HSUS has made "only six grants to Missouri pet shelters, totaling less than $43,000, according to its filings with the IRS", and has spent "at least $2.18 million" on Prop B.

As this article was written on December 3, of 2010, the $43,000 figure can only and deceptively have been taken from 2009 tax returns. Presumably, the bulk of HSUS campaigning and expenditures took place in 2010, the year the ballot measure was put to a vote. It may also be presumed that the bulk of shelter donations were funded by non-residents of Missouri. Even so, HSUS has spent in excess of 2 million dollars towards what are widely considered to be the most prudent measures addressing puppy mills and overpopulation. Yet, according to Mr. Martosko, what this information clearly demonstrates is that:


 * "the group doesn't seem interested in funding a fix for the aftermath."

Which leads to the real issue:


 * "Of course, there's an outside chance the coming pup-pocalypse won't materialize. Since Prop B is not a constitutional amendment, state legislators can still amend it. Regardless, we should all contribute what we can to Missouri pet shelters and rescue groups that will be left holding the bag. ...It's high time the fat cats did something more meaningful for dogs than collecting signatures on clipboards and popping champagne corks.

He did not include the amount of money CCF's clients spent trying to defeat Prop B, nor how much they plan to spend attempting to repeal it. These measures are hardly groundbreaking. Similar measures have been adopted in several other states. See also section 3.2

Fighting a repeal


In November, nearly one million Missouri voters passed humane reforms that would treat dogs more like loving pets and less like commodities. These dogs deserved better than a life time of suffering and confinement in small, wire cages. Some of these mills don't even allow for these animals to stretch their legs or touch solid ground. Yet, bills have been introduced to repeal Prop B, threatening progress and long overdue protection for these dogs. Under the former regulations, a dog could legally be kept in a cage just six inches longer than her body. She could be confined to that cage and never, ever let out. There was no requirement for her to see a veterinarian. The dog could be kept in the same wire cage in the middle of the winter and exposed to freezing temperatures. The new regulations simply require adequate food, clean water, exercise, properly sized and sanitary cages, veterinary care, protection from extreme heat and cold as well as adequate time between breeding cycles. These requirements are both modest and reasonable. Prop B even provided for a one year phase in to allow breeder enough time to comply.

Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, other supporters and concerned citizens are dedicated to fighting the undemocratic attempt to repeal Prop B.

SourceWatch articles

 * American Veterinary Medical Association
 * A Visit to the ActivistCash.Com Web Site
 * CCF selected campaigns
 * Center for Consumer Freedom
 * David Martosko
 * Humane Movement
 * Humane Society of the United States
 * Hunte Corporation
 * Meat & Dairy industry
 * NABR & the Animal Welfare Act
 * PA puppy mills
 * Petland
 * Richard Berman cares about animals: clients exposed
 * U.S. animal rights legislation
 * U.S. Department of Agriculture
 * War on Animals

External articles

 * Mary Ann West Ca-Ching: Puppy Mill Sales Continue to Ring, Huffington Post, July 30, 2010

See also puppy mills.

External resources

 * Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, accessed January 2010
 * Missouri's Puppy Mill Problem, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, accessed January 2011